Parents' Experiences of Communication in Neonatal Care (PEC): a neonatal survey refined for real-time parent feedback.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing parent experiences of neonatal services can help improve quality of care; however, there is no formally evaluated UK instrument available to assess this prospectively. Our objective was to refine an existing retrospective survey for 'real-time' feedback. METHODS: Co-led by a parent representative, we recruited a convenience sample of parents of infants in a London tertiary neonatal unit. Our steering group selected questions from the existing retrospective 61-question Picker survey (2014), added and revised questions assessing communication and parent involvement. We established face validity, ensuring questions adequately captured the topic, conducted parent cognitive interviews to evaluate parental understanding of questions,and adapted the survey in three revision cycles. We evaluated survey performance. RESULTS: The revised Parents' Experiences of Communication in Neonatal Care (PEC) survey contains 28 questions (10 new) focusing on communication and parent involvement. We cognitively interviewed six parents, and 67 parents completed 197 PEC surveys in the survey performance evaluation. Missing entries exceeded 5% for nine questions; we removed one and format-adjusted the rest as they had performed well during cognitive testing. There was strong inter-item correlation between two question pairs; however, all were retained as they individually assessed important concepts. CONCLUSION: Revised from the original 61-question Picker survey, the 28-question PEC survey is the first UK instrument formally evaluated to assess parent experience while infants are still receiving neonatal care. Developed with parents, it focuses on communication and parent involvement, enabling continuous assessment and iterative improvement of family-centred interventions in neonatal care.

Interventions to improve quantitative measures of parent satisfaction in neonatal care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Interventions improving parent satisfaction can reduce parent stress, may improve parent-infant bonding and infant outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review neonatal interventions relating to parents of infants of all gestations where an outcome was parent satisfaction. METHODS: We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, HMIC, Maternity and Infant Care between 1 January 1946 and 1 October 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCT), cohort studies and other non-randomised studies if participants were parents of infants receiving neonatal care, interventions were implemented in neonatal units (of any care level) and ≥1 quantitative outcome of parent satisfaction was measured. Included studies were limited to the English language only. We extracted study characteristics, interventions, outcomes and parent involvement in intervention design. Included studies were not sufficiently homogenous to enable quantitative synthesis. We assessed quality with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (randomised) and the ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) (non-randomised studies). RESULTS: We identified 32 studies with satisfaction measures from over 2800 parents and grouped interventions into 5 themes. Most studies were non-randomised involving preterm infants. Parent satisfaction was measured by 334 different questions in 29 questionnaires (only 6/29 fully validated). 18/32 studies reported higher parent satisfaction in the intervention group. The intervention theme with most studies reporting higher satisfaction was parent involvement (10/14). Five (5/32) studies reported involving parents in intervention design. All studies had high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Many interventions, commonly relating to parent involvement, are reported to improve parent satisfaction. Inconsistency in satisfaction measurements and high risk of bias makes this low-quality evidence. Standardised, validated parent satisfaction measures are needed, as well as higher quality trials of parent experience involving parents in intervention design. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017072388.

Inconsistent outcome reporting in large neonatal trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Inconsistent outcome selection and reporting in clinical trials are important sources of research waste; it is not known how common this problem is in neonatal trials. Our objective was to determine whether large clinical trials involving infants receiving neonatal care report a consistent set of outcomes, how composite outcomes are used and whether parents or former patients were involved in outcome selection. DESIGN: A literature search of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted; randomised trials published between 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2017 and involving at least 100 infants in each arm were included. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and categorised by physiological system; reported former patient and parent involvement in outcome selection was extracted. RESULTS: Seventy-six trials involving 43 126 infants were identified; 216 different outcomes with 889 different outcome measures were reported. Outcome reporting covered all physiological systems but was variable between individual trials: only 67/76 (88%) of trials reported survival and 639 outcome measures were only reported in a single trial. Thirty-three composite outcomes were used in 41 trials. No trials reported former patient or parent involvement in outcome selection. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent outcome reporting and a lack of parent and former patient involvement in outcome selection in neonatal clinical trials limits the ability of such trials to answer clinically meaningful questions. Developing and implementing a core outcome set for future neonatal trials, with input from all stakeholders, should address these issues.

Better Use of Data to improve parent Satisfaction (BUDS): protocol for a prospective before-and-after pilot study employing mixed methods to improve parent experience of neonatal care.

INTRODUCTION: Having a baby that requires neonatal care is stressful and traumatic. Parents often report dissatisfaction with communication of clinical information. In the UK neonatal care data are recorded daily using electronic patient record systems (EPR), from which deidentified data form the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD). We aim to evaluate the impact of sharing neonatal EPR data with parents, on parent-reported satisfaction, parent-staff interactions, staff workload and data completeness. METHODS: A prospective, before-and-after, mixed-method study. Participants are parents of inpatient babies (maximum 90) and staff in a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit, London, UK. The intervention was developed by former neonatal parents, neonatologists and neonatal nurses: a communication tool for parents comprising individualised, written, daily infant updates for parents, derived from EPR data. The intervention will be provided to parents over 6 weeks. Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles will inform the tool's iterative development and improvement. The tool's impact will be measured using a validated parent survey, staff survey, data completeness measures and interviews. ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: parent satisfaction 'with communication of clinical information and involvement in care'. Secondary outcomes: parent-staff interactions, staff workload, data completeness. Baseline survey data will be obtained from clinical service evaluation preceding the intervention. Baseline data completeness will be derived from the NNRD. During the intervention, surveys will be administered biweekly and data completeness assessed daily. We will analyse outcomes using run charts and partially paired statistical tests. Parent and staff interviews will explore information exchange and the communication tool's impact. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the impact of a parent co-designed intervention on communication with parents in neonatal care and the completeness of routinely recorded electronic clinical data. Better use of routinely recorded clinical data provides the opportunity to improve parent satisfaction and increase the research utility of such data, benefiting clinical care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Reviewed and approved by the West Midlands-South Birmingham REC (18/WM/0175). REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN62718241.

Mortality and short-term morbidity in infants with exomphalos.

BACKGROUND: Infants with exomphalos major have a high mortality and morbidity. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of survival regardless of the size of the exomphalos, and to analyze morbidity in infants with exomphalos minor. METHODS: Patients were classified as having exomphalos major or minor based on whether the liver was in the exomphalos sac, and the size of the abdominal wall defect. The respiratory, gastrointestinal and surgical outcomes of 50 infants with exomphalos (including 27 with exomphalos major) were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to identify factors predictive of survival. RESULTS: No infant with exomphalos minor died; there were seven deaths in the exomphalos major group (P < 0.001). Infants with exomphalos minor who had chromosomal abnormalities (six had a genetic diagnosis of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome) developed severe respiratory distress or chronic respiratory morbidity. Nasogastric feeding at discharge was required in 37% of infants with exomphalos major and in 17% with exomphalos minor. Lower gestational age (area under the ROC curve [AUROC], 0.814) and birthweight (AUROC, 0.797), and longer duration of ventilation (AUROC, 0.853) and of supplementary oxygen (AUROC, 0.810) were predictive of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Infants with exomphalos regardless of size can have chronic morbidity. Mortality is commonest in those with exomphalos major born at lower gestational age and birthweight.